2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5; what is coming?

[OzSpen]

When you go into one of their word definitions then it lists them. It's hard to describe, but you'll find it I'm sure. It all seems complicated at first, but gets easier to use.

Nathan,

I just did that for the meaning of 'faith' and this is what it gave me in searching for lexicons: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=faith&t=KJV&lexcSt=2#s=s_lexiconc
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=faith&t=KJV&lexcSt=2#s=s_lexiconc
That is word meaning in Hebrew and Greek from Strong's Concordance. That is NOT from recommended lexicons such as: (1) Arndt & Gingrich, and (2) Thayer.

Now you may find it satisfactory when you don't know Hebrew and Greek, but I encourage you not to make out you are using lexicons of the original language. By the way, when I searched for 'faith', it did not give me the word in the original languages, it gave me a transliterated version.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I cannot do that because no one receives salvation apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And your question is quite puzzling as there is nothing in my posts that would suggest such a thing.


As I've just explained to another poster, Eph 1:13 says "having believed", which is the aorist tense. The result of this point in time believing is being sealed with the Holy Spirit, a guarantee for the day of redemption (v.14).

FG,

It was you who stated in #189, 'But, what the Bible never even suggests, is that loss of faith equals loss of salvation. That has not been shown'. I was replying to that. Therefore, if one no longer has faith in Jesus, he/she no longer has salvation.

Emphasising the aorist tense of Eph 1:13 for 'having believed' - it's pisteusantas, an aorist participle - is problematic on this forum because this is not a place to go into the nuances of the participle, including the aorist participle.

However, this we know that the God of truth will not lie or contradict Himself. The meaning of Eph 1:13 must be in harmony with verses such as John 3:16 (ESV), 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

We know that,

• 'believes' is present tense participle, with its nuances;
• 'have' is present tense verb = continues having.

So the one who continues to believe continues to have eternal life.

Oz

 

[Nathan]

Nathan,

I just did that for the meaning of 'faith' and this is what it gave me in searching for lexicons: https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=faith&t=KJV&lexcSt=2#s=s_lexiconc
That is word meaning in Hebrew and Greek from Strong's Concordance. That is NOT from recommended lexicons such as: (1) Arndt & Gingrich, and (2) Thayer.

Now you may find it satisfactory when you don't know Hebrew and Greek, but I encourage you not to make out you are using lexicons of the original language. By the way, when I searched for 'faith', it did not give me the word in the original languages, it gave me a transliterated version.

Oz

Interesting. Who recommends those lexicons?

I'm pretty sure that they use Thayer.

As I have said, it's a seemingly complex site till you get used to it. I use the app on my phone.

 

[chessman]

Whether one "partakes" of the Holy Spirit or one "partners" with the Holy Spirit, they must "receive" the holy Spirit in order to do so.

Really, says who?

John 20:19, 22 (NASB) So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, ... Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ​

The disciples did not "receive" the Holy Spirit until after Jesus' resurrection. Says John. Why??? Because the Holy Spirit had not yet been "given". Says John.

John 7:37-39 (NASB) Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
​

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting. Who recommends those lexicons?

I'm pretty sure that they use Thayer.

As I have said, it's a seemingly complex site till you get used to it. I use the app on my phone.

Those who recommend these lexicons (and major word studies) are scholars in Hebrew and Greek who know the original languages.

I didn't see anywhere on the blueletterbible site that it used Thayer. However, I found it to be a poorly designed site that was not easy to navigate around.

Bye,
Oz

 

[Nathan]

Those who recommend these lexicons (and major word studies) are scholars in Hebrew and Greek who know the original languages.

I didn't see anywhere on the blueletterbible site that it used Thayer. However, I found it to be a poorly designed site that was not easy to navigate around.

Bye,
Oz

I see. I am very cautious of "scholars", because generally their denominational background steers their focus.

I actually felt the same way about the website at first. It took me a while to become used to it, and eventually I figured out the different aspects of it. Now I use it as my main study tool, but am not opposed to cross referencing other sources at times. Unless you shell out a lot of money you get what you pay for with study tools. At least BLB keeps their stuff free. I know there are some others that do too.

Which tools/websites do you use?

 

[chessman]

I didn't see anywhere on the blueletterbible site that it used Thayer.

BLB use Thayer's.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=g1

So does biblehub.com
Biblehub also uses another lexicon for comparison purposes which was developed by Word Studies Ministries.

Modern lexicons are copyrighted. Thayer's is out of copyrights.

 

[OzSpen]

I see. I am very cautious of "scholars", because generally their denominational background steers their focus.

I actually felt the same way about the website at first. It took me a while to become used to it, and eventually I figured out the different aspects of it. Now I use it as my main study tool, but am not opposed to cross referencing other sources at times. Unless you shell out a lot of money you get what you pay for with study tools. At least BLB keeps their stuff free. I know there are some others that do too.

Which tools/websites do you use?

Nathan,

Cautious of scholars?? That's why God required that you have the ministry of discernment to know when false doctrine comes along (see Gal 5:7-12).

If it were not for scholars in the original languages, you would not have translations of the Bible. Multiple scholars work on translations of Bible books.

You don't seem to understand the peer reviews that go into the publication of books.

Gal 5:7-12 (NIV) warns us:

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!​

Which scholars have you been reading lately?

Oz

 

[Nathan]

Nathan,

Cautious of scholars?? That's why God required that you have the ministry of discernment to know when false doctrine comes along (see Gal 5:7-12).

If it were not for scholars in the original languages, you would not have translations of the Bible. Multiple scholars work on translations of Bible books.

You don't seem to understand the peer reviews that go into the publication of books.

Gal 5:7-12 (NIV) warns us:

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!​

Which scholars have you been reading lately?

Oz

I tend to be of the persuasion that God used men to translate His words - regardless if they had good intentions or not.

Discernment is a great gift and is essential when studying in depth topics and discussing with others.

I don't 'read' any scholars to tell you the truth. If you consider the translations of the Bible scholar work, and subsequent study tools, I use all that I can. I don't stick to one thing exclusively as long as it helps me study.

I do shy away from the more liberal translations, NIV being one, but I don't keep my eyes shut to what God may use to help me.

 

[OzSpen]

BLB use Thayer's.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=g1

So does biblehub.com
Biblehub also uses another lexicon for comparison purposes which was developed by Word Studies Ministries.

Modern lexicons are copyrighted. Thayer's is out of copyrights.

Thanks for that link. Thayer's lexicon (I have a hard copy) was issued in 1885 and the corrected edition in 1889. It desperately needs an update. That's why Arndt & Gingrich is my preferred lexicon. It is much more comprehensive and more recent than Thayer. But it does cost a pretty penny.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I do shy away from the more liberal translations, NIV being one, but I don't keep my eyes shut to what God may use to help me.

Please provide evidence in your own words that the NIV is one of 'the more liberal translations'.

 

[Nathan]

I quit reading extra Biblical books years ago. I found out that it took more time to check their theology, while reading them, that it seemed pointless.

Why not just read the Bible and study it for myself rather than just reading someone else's thoughts? I'm not much of a reader anyways, so I only read to find information. I know others just read for the enjoyment of it. I'm not one of those people.

 

[chessman]

That's why Arndt & Gingrich is my preferred lexicon. It is much more comprehensive and more recent than Thayer. But it does cost a pretty penny.

Yep.
And not easy (or legal) to copy/paste from.

 

[Nathan]

Please provide evidence in your own words that the NIV is one of 'the more liberal translations'.

I can only do so based on examples. For instance;

2 Corinthians 5:5 (ESV) He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

2 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV) Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

You see here the NIV added the last phrase "guaranteeing what is to come". That is a liberal approach to translating the Bible. I'm not aware that any manuscripts which have that phrase in the original language.

 

[chessman]

2 Corinthians 5:5 (NIV) Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Your example is not liberal or conservative. It's simply the translation of the Greek sentence's verb tenses, nouns and adjectives in the original Greek thought using something equivalent in the English.

English doesn't have the NT Greek verb tense aorist (an accomplished action without regard to duration). So the translation here (NIV), simply brings out the original sentence's thought into the English.

http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm

When God "fashioned us" and "gave us" the Spirit/Guarantee, He did so in the past indefinitely with regard to duration. It's just a fact of the grammar. Like it or not.

p.s.
"The word theist is used of a person who believes in God.
An atheist does not believe in God.

A gnostic claimed to have a special knowledge.
An agnostic supposes he cannot know.

Notice the effect of the initial a in atheist and agnostic."

 

[Jim Parker]

Really, says who?

John 20:19, 22 (NASB) So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, ... Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ​

The disciples did not "receive" the Holy Spirit until after Jesus' resurrection. Says John. Why??? Because the Holy Spirit had not yet been "given". Says John.

John 7:37-39 (NASB) Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
​

That's nice.
But it has nothing to do with what I posted.
Was the post for someone else and was sent to me by mistake?

 

[FreeGrace]

You said that you believed a person who turns from faith would still be sealed did you not?

I showed the verse that says that "it is impossible for God to lie" from Heb 6:18, and then I showed the 2 verses that guarantee that "having believed", one is sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, for the day of redemption.

That's what I said.

So then how can you say that you don't believe there is any other way than faith in Jesus?

The phrase "having believed" is an aorist tense. That means initial faith. A point in time of belief. And from that point in time initial belief, the one who has believed, is sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, a guarantee for the day of redemption. Eph 1:13-14

These two beliefs are opposed to each other.

There are not 2 beliefs. There is one belief, in a point in time. Which saves, seals, justifies, adopts as son, and gives eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace]

When you drink a glass of water, you are receiving the water into you.

• Jesus directly refers to eternal life as being water that is received by drinking.

I'm very glad this has been brought up. Jesus said this in John 4:14 - but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

Jesus used the aorist tense, the tense that has no consideration of duration of time element. iow, from a SINGLE DRINK, one will never thirst.

 

[FreeGrace]

FG,

It was you who stated in #189, 'But, what the Bible never even suggests, is that loss of faith equals loss of salvation. That has not been shown'. I was replying to that. Therefore, if one no longer has faith in Jesus, he/she no longer has salvation.

It requires a large dose of assumption to conclude from any of the verses given for the OSNAS side that they teach loss of salvation.

Emphasising the aorist tense of Eph 1:13 for 'having believed' - it's pisteusantas, an aorist participle - is problematic on this forum because this is not a place to go into the nuances of the participle, including the aorist participle.

Seriously? Isn't this a debate forum? Can't debaters use EVIDENCE to support their positions?

I'll happily use the aorist tense EVERY time it comes up in a passage, because it refutes the popular notion that one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved.

However, this we know that the God of truth will not lie or contradict Himself.

Absolutely true.

The meaning of Eph 1:13 must be in harmony with verses such as John 3:16 (ESV), 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life'.

We know from Jesus' use of the present tense that it clearly doesn't mean "continuous action for the rest of one's life" as claimed by the OSNAS group. Just parse Luke 8:13 to see what I mean. Jesus said the second soil "believed for a while". In the present tense, no less.

And in the previous verse, He said "lest they (first soil) believe and be saved". He used the aorist tense in v.12.

We know that,

• 'believes' is present tense participle, with its nuances;
• 'have' is present tense verb = continues having.

So the one who continues to believe continues to have eternal life.

Oz

This conclusion is flawed because the logic is flawed.

The OSNAS group abuses the present tense when it claims the present tense means one must continue to believe in order to continue to be saved. It means no such thing. As Jesus demonstrated in Luke 8:13.

 

[Jim Parker]

I showed the verse that says that "it is impossible for God to lie" from Heb 6:18, and then I showed the 2 verses that guarantee that "having believed", one is sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit, for the day of redemption.

And then ignored or scrambled the rest of scripture which refutes your position.
We got it.
Thanks.
Time to move on.